[AJ2011]

That might not be a good definition. Psychological egoism claims that all actions are ultimately motivated by self-interest. Psychological altruism claims that some actions are ultimately motived by other-directed interests. If what is important to you is the welfare of others, is that really self-interest?

Well, it really depends on what "important" means. As an example, if important is determined by a sense of satisfaction I get when I care about the welfare of others, then, yes, it is self-interest. The question comes down to how importance is determined in the first place. If that can be defined for the person, then the question can be answered. What is important to oneself must have originated somewhere? I am suggesting that is the ego.

[crazyeddie]

Well, it really depends on what "important" means. As an example, if important is determined by a sense of satisfaction I get when I care about the welfare of others, then, yes, it is self-interest.

The next question is whether this "self-interest" is actually playing a motivating role. It may be the case that helping someone will give you the warm and fuzzies, but are you doing it for the warm and fuzzies or are you doing it to help the other person?

[AJ2011]

The next question is whether this "self-interest" is actually playing a motivating role. It may be the case that helping someone will give you the warm and fuzzies, but are you doing it for the warm and fuzzies or are you doing it to help the other person?

To this I would add that "helping the other person" is within the mind if it is a deliberate process. At which point, you are helping the "other person" as the image projected onto your own mind, which is of your self. So, ultimately, it is not other-directed interests, but self-interest.

[crazyeddie]

To this I would add that "helping the other person" is within the mind if it is a deliberate process. At which point, you are helping the "other person" as the image projected onto your own mind, which is of your self. So, ultimately, it is not other-directed interests, but self-interest.

I believe that is taking an overly broad interpretation of "self-interest." If "I want warm and fuzzies" was involved in the deliberative process, then that would be self-interest. But if it's just "I want that person to be happy," then that would be other-directed interest.

[L]

Not really. I can always force him. LOL. Now THAT is selfish.

A psychological eqoist would say that while it would might give you a good feeling in the moment it would make you feel like crap later on and that is the reason you did not force him to eat the chips.

But I'm serious, though. I did not force him because he has personal boundaries and private rights that should be respected.

Why should they be respected? Because it is what was taught to you and you want to pass these down to newer generations? That is selfish, or so the argument of psychological eqoism would state. And actually, a better way to put it would not be 'selfish' as I have been calling it but a better term would probably be 'self-interest' which I believe psychological eqoism states as well, correct me if I am wrong on my terminology @crazyeddie

This is where the psychological egoism doesn't make sense to me, because the theory ignores the external environment for decision making process of selfishness. It just stop in the "selfishness" point of view, without considering the dynamic of human interaction.

As I stated above it's not so much about selfishness but more about self-interests. Self-interests are not considered to be the same thing as selfishness.

[L]

I believe that is taking an overly broad interpretation of "self-interest." If "I want warm and fuzzies" was involved in the deliberative process, then that would be self-interest. But if it's just "I want that person to be happy," then that would be other-directed interest.

Not necessarily.

I want the other person to be happy, but why? Why do I want this person that is not me to be happy? Because it is within my self-interests that they have the best life/experience/whatever they can possibly have. You can argue that because they are happy you are happy and this in turn directly ties in both of your self-interests but yours are still in there as well.

[AJ2011]

I believe that is taking an overly broad interpretation of "self-interest." If "I want warm and fuzzies" was involved in the deliberative process, then that would be self-interest. But if it's just "I want that person to be happy," then that would be other-directed interest.

Isn't our knowledge of the other person a mental projection onto our mind? If we use our mind to make decisions, then we are working with mental projections of the other, not the actual other who we may never actually know.

I am suggesting that there is no "other" other than what we project onto our minds about the other. So, there can be no other-directed interests, only self-interest, when decisions are made using our mind.

[crazyeddie]

I want the other person to be happy, but why? Why do I want this person that is not me to be happy?

Be sure to distinguish between "why" in the sense of causal reason and a "why" in terms of an ultimate motivation. If a motivation doesn't appear in the reasoning process that leads to a decision, is it really a motivation?

[Pianoasis]

Pretty much ANYTHING that anyone does can be in some way interpreted as psychological egotism. Humans are selfish, it's nothing new.

[L]

That is ridiculous. What if I want someone to be happy, but in the same time, his happiness makes me sad and contrary with what I want, but I have no other choice but doing it anyway?

Why do you not have a choice? You always have a choice. It can be argued, like I have done above, that his happiness means more to you because you want him to have a good life and because you want him to have a good life it becomes your self-interest to go with his happiness over yours.

For example, the chips I bought is actually contains an ingredient that he does not like (e.g chili), so he throw the chips away. He's happy for doing that, I'm sad, but I know I can't force him to eat the chips anyway, so I decided to let him do that. In what way that my decision has a selfish intention?

Not selfish, just self-interest, completely different. I doubt I need to, but if I do let me know if you want some definitions.

If you truly believe that you cannot force him to eat the chips then it is in your self-interests to just drop the subject as it would bring more annoyance/sadness/whatever later on down the road.